Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-10
PROHIBITION.
Sunday Collection OF Arguments Pro eft
Con on the AIl.LbS0rbing Topic
Of the Time.
What the Newspapers of Texas Say of Al
cohoI and MaIt-Senator HaxeE's
Reply to MIR. Gibbs,

tlat Q0CtTlQe. Leu II De noted Jl8C local
option is already in the constitution of
the state, but that the proposed pro
hibitorY amendment to that constitution
would supercede and take away local
option. The Democratic party of Texas,
in its platform of last year, declared as
follows:
u. We do not believe that the views of
any citizen upon the question CT local
option should interfere with his standing
in the Democratic party; and we declare
the question TO BE- one in which every
Democrat may indulge his own views
without affecting his Democracy.
Need any one ask what is the meaning
of this plank in the platform? Words
couldno be palmer. No citizen is to be
ruled out of the Democratic party for his
ylews upon local option. That was TO be
expected. The Democratic party had put
ElocaI option in the constitution. 1t was
not likely after that to act intolerably to-
ward those citizens who speak and vote
for that measure. The Democratic
party in Texas was so strong that in
framing that constitution its leaders
conceived the need of thinking for ell
parties which usually make their appear
dlfCt III u iuGll Odl STA ACo ltSS DGulGC
so that the constitution might be broad
enough. Before he was governor the
present chief magistrate explained the
broader than party responsibility which he
felt at the time Of me CONSTITUTE, nal con-
vention and which led 10 the provision
for local option. Still, taking
situation as it is, the anti-prohibitIon
Democrats are not bound to stand silent.
,Io,. q I,,-+ ,>1,4
form does not endorse prohibition It
does rot make even the affirmative of To-
cal option q part Of the party creed. The
declaration is for treedOEl OF views upon
that question. The Prohibitionists wish
to change the constitution radiCslly, so
they are against the continuance of
local option. The platform, by q very
liberal construction, may afford them
federation, but more likely the intent
Of plank No. y is that local prohibition
views are tOlerable in Democracy, Now,
though state prohibition compares with
local option on one side, it would natur-
ally be in the minds ot the platform
makers to compare local option SIS local
prohibition with the license system; and
thus their expressed tolerance for local
option almost implies refusal TO sanction
state prohibition. Bat if they meant more
than they said they only expressed toler-
anCe, and even the auii-lCcaI Optionists,
to say nothing Cf the auji-s'6:e prOhib.
litiOnists, are Just Us VIRTUALLY" invited
to eXpend their mOu-y aud breath against
prohibition as shy prChibi,iOnists arc
VIRTUALLY" invited to belong TO one
party while organizing smother. Here
the ProhibitiODists seem TO take an adj
vantage which should be a caution to the
next Democratic convention. The Dem
OCTatiC party declares q broad tolerance
for local option. Not content with work
ing in the party, certain men organiZ2
another party, not for local option, but
to take the option away from localities by
constitutional amendments. Democrats
in the Legislature profess, some of them,
to respect the right Of petition, others to
choose the time for giving prohibition 8
stinginG defeat, and then the anti-prOhI-
bition Democrats ere invited to silence
under party discipline, while the new
party is being formed and max
M a campaign. The Democratic
party has not invited its mem
bers to silence or passiveness, least of all
has it contemplated its Iiberality beng
used TO stab it IS a party. The situation
is almost faTCiCsI with probably the great
mass of the Democrats in favor of maiu-
tanning the constitution as 1t is, and no
proposition TO take away that local Op-
ton clause which the Democratic party
officially tolerate and to substitute license
everywhere, but with q completely pro
hibitory proposition contrary to the home
rule doctrine of the party, and q new
party springiug up to fight the giant with
his hands tied by himself. What could
be more ridiculous or menaCing for Texas
DemOcracy?-[ Dallas News.
The Post prints to-day two articles on
the subject of the coming prohibition
contest. One is from United States Sen
stor Coke, the other from very promi-
nent official re ident of Houston. They
are very unlike, and, for convenience of
comparison by the reader, are laid side by
side. Both writer's are unalterablY op-
posed to prohibition, being in the nature
of sumptuary enactment, would be
plain infraction of one of the best
established tenets of Democracy.
Both, therefore, oppose It from
party principle, but here the SINH
Iarity ends. Agreed as to party
principle, they divide IS to party policy.
One holds that distinct party expression,
in the platform, is the supreme law, to
which all good Democrats must yield
acQuiescenCe if not absolute blind obe-
dience; the other seems to regard this
self-same party expression In the light of
q mere platitude, designed as an agent in
the face of q political exigency, prom
Use, in short, made to catch votes and
then be broken. These IN brief appear
to be the views of the two gentlemen
with regard to the policy which the
Democratic party, as a party. should or
ought to pursue in the prohibition con-
test. Both are Democratic leaders, in
their respective spheres, consequently it
may be seen that in this fight the party
leaders have already indicated variance
of opinion, if not of action. On this
point the Post sides with Senator Coke.
No Democrat can fight successfully off of
the Democratic platform, and however
much we might desire to m9ke this a
party question, we can not do so in face
of the inhibition stamped upon the party
banner at the late state convention
true Democrat by holding him
self 8menable in ell things
to party discipline. No one will dispute
his right to the opinion that in dealing
swith this question, the party sdoped the
wrong policy. Such is his individual
iudgnf6at, but, like the strict party man
he h15 ever claimed to be, he takes the
lssssss Ls fDds it. In this Senator Coke
proves himself a better Democrat, the
Pest thinks, than the other gentleman
who is given audience this morning
Party organic 'tion is preserved intact by
the adoption of certain rules and regula-
tons, aud il would be manifestly foolish
to contend that such orgsni zation
could or would survive reck-
lass disregard of those rules, PARTY